Another runway at Heathrow
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AndyH52 - Thankyou for a very thoughtful reply. You are clearly experienced in the field of capital infrastructure projects.
I would like to come back on some of your points, however.
T&N clearly stated that "all sectors" were in agreement with the report. I think it is fair to interpret his intentions exactly as written.
[/QUOTE] Is it? HAL's construction cost estimate is £11.1bn [/QUOTE]
Is it [an extraordinarily expensive project]? Well, yes, it is. These are very large numbers even at the low-end estimates supplied by HAL.
I'm rather sceptical about this bit. Sir Peter Hendy, Commissioner of Transport for London for the past nine years (and new head of Network Rail) puts the cost of supporting surface access works at £10Bn. This is a man very well placed to know. And I don't believe that HAL will be funding £8.8Bn of that.
I accept your expertise in this field. I do, however, have my doubts about the reliability of this underlying £147Bn figure. Unfortunately, I suspect I won't be around 60 years from know to tell everybody "I told you so!"
Whilst I accept the mathematical principles of BCR as you explain them, I don't think that any of us are in a position to ascribe a value to a project such as the Liverpool to Newcastle rail upgrade until considerable research has been carried out. And even then, a forecast going out 60 years would be as vulnerable as the LHR R3 forecast.
This frequently quoted statistic comes with a major inherent flaw. There are many corporate entities which declare their profits from a London HQ address but whose revenues are derived from operations nationwide and internationally. As the home to many corporate HQ's, this statistic overplays London's tax-raising status vis-a-vis the rest of the country. Many of the taxed profits are in reality earned in the UK regions.
But isn't this the very same capital funding of which £260M has just been cancelled for Transpennine electrification because Network Rail got its sums wrong? The problem is that the regions are seeing nothing like their rightful share of capital funding.
Yes, but international transfer passengers using LHR don't pay any of that APD. And we're constantly told how important they are ... we should spend £20Bn+ to accommodate more of them. As for UK domiciled passengers, or incoming visitors to the UK, they will pay APD just the same whichever airport they use. At least, that is so under the current system (which may soon change).
Except that those UK passengers who are eligible to pay APD would likely do so via LGW/STN/LTN etc. if LHR is unable to accommodate their preferred journey option. Most travel of this sort will happen anyway ... the only variable is the departure point.
And now to Skipness:
Remind me Skipness ... who introduced the subject of the Channel Tunnel into this debate? Oh that's right ... it was YOU!. Remind me Skipness ... who introduced the London Olympics and tram projects into this debate? Oh that's right ... it was YOU! I merely ran with the topics which you chose to put into play, and the chain of events I related are a matter of public record. So if reference to those topics belongs in JetBlast, who should have introduced them there? YOU!!!
I see you're still working hard to introduce Manchester Airport into the discussion at any opportunity. Next you will claim that LHR R3 opponents are motivated only by a narrow-minded desire to 'support' MAN. We are all MAN fanboys after all, aren't we? Not credible participants in a key national debate. Unfortunately, I have not been discussing MAN in this debate. There is no reason to refer to it.
And indeed it should be, especially if it costs between £20Bn-£40Bn to deliver. But since you mention it, MAN's second runway was delivered for £172M [£253M inflation-adjusted]. And based on that sum it represents stellar value. At the end of its lifespan - hopefully many decades from now - it will have paid for itself many times over. And it was privately funded. No multiple billions from the public purse made it happen.
The MAN layout is sub-optimal, but you imply there was a choice. There wasn't. This was the only solution which could conceivably achieve planning approval.
I would like to come back on some of your points, however.
I suspect the original comment was in relation to business-representative organisations such as the Institute of Directors or the CBI as opposed to local politicians and interest groups?
[/QUOTE] Is it? HAL's construction cost estimate is £11.1bn [/QUOTE]
Is it [an extraordinarily expensive project]? Well, yes, it is. These are very large numbers even at the low-end estimates supplied by HAL.
Of this all but £1.2 billion would be privately funded.
a forecast benefit of £147bn still represents a BCR of over 14
Most of the projects listed by SHED, whilst of benefit to the localities in question, would struggle to achieve a BCR of 5
London contributed £126bn in taxes...Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield combined generated around £38bn
capital funding - which this would be- is effectively an investment that can generate a return and hence be reinvested elsewhere
LHR already accounts for getting on one third of the £3bn of APD that flows into the Treasury each year.
This may reinforce a view that any public funds spent to enable more passengers to fly through Heathrow would be recouped over time through increased tax revenues.
And now to Skipness:
Some of this might be better place on a thread titled "Apparent injusticies rained down on Northeners" on JetBlast surely
Filed next to one about BOAC forcing Sabena longhaul from Ringway......
I think a new runway at LHR will be more of an national asset than the second runway at MAN ever was
Who came up with that layout deserves <edited>
Last edited by Shed-on-a-Pole; 12th Jul 2015 at 12:58.
A short section of motorway should be constructed to relieve the heavily-congested section of the A556 used by traffic linking from the M60/M62 to the M6 Southbound.
Construction has already started with completion due in W2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hvld-1CHRPo
A556 Knutsford to Bowdon Improvement - Road Projects - Highways Agency
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Mr Sinch,
May I call you Abbott ? Now about those 3rd Runway Proposals.
Many thanks for your unabashed support from North Of the border for my report in respect of a 3rd Runway down here in blighty. Absolutely Splendid stuff, oh and thanks for the kilt by the way. Had no idea there was a Davies clan !
Do pass on my thanks to Mrs Sturgeon as well.
Like you she clearly doesn't believe in reading small print so just in case you missed everything which you clearly did, I will reiterate a few things here.
Now I am sure you are aware of the bold facts as it seems is everybody and are fully supportive of my proposals on that basis, there are however some small trifling details (£20Bn) which we still need to iron out.
As you are aware Juan is leading our "Spanish Team" and is picking up the tab for the tarmac but we still need a few bob for some minor road and rail improvements. These are minimal but I have listed the details below
M4 J3 to J4 Road widening
M4 Airport Spur Road widening
M4 J2 to J3 Road widening
M4 J4 and J4B Road widening
M4 Large M4 Junction 4b replacement
M4 Higher capacity @ M4 J4a
M4 Capacity improvements to existing main airport tunnel
M25 M25 tunnelling costs (south of junction 15)
A4 Diversion of A4 road alignment, dual carriageway
A3044 Diversion of A3044 road alignment, dual carriageway
Airport Roads Airport Way/Southern Perimeter Road, interchange, grade-separated junction and
flyover/bridge structures
Heathrow Road Tunnel Southern Road Tunnel/Southern Perimeter Road Interchange
Airport One Way One way system for western campus
Rail - Southern Rail Access to Staines
Alongside these proposals I've also thrown in the concept of a new ‘hub station’ on the Great Western Main Line (GWML) to the north of the airport boundary. This would be located close to Iver and would be linked to the airport by a direct Automated People Mover (APM). The objective would be to provide enhanced rail access to the airport, with all services on the GWML stopping at
the hub station,
I'm sure you will agree, superficial stuff really !
Now don't say anything to those bloody Mancunians who are continually going on, and on, and on about something called Northernpowerhouse, not a clue what that is, irony is I’m a bloody Manc myself ho, ho, anyway it seems they want some basic road/rail improvements as well !
Whisper it but I have managed to "have a word" with George.
At the last meeting he had with them they were banging on about decrepit rolling stock, trains not working, overcrowding etc sounds bloody awful,
Bit like the chaos we had on the underground last week except they have it 7 days a week !
Thank God we have Crossrail 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, down here. If things get really bad I will pop down to that sports hall we built near Greenwich or maybe thru Le Tunnel for a spot of déjeuner washed down with a large red
....anyway I digress, he managed to raid the tea trolley, when they were not looking and has nicked £230million, putting things into context its 2% of OUR budget but hey, every little helps doesn't it.
Now despite what I have said earlier all this work down here won't come cheap and your probably thinking wouldn't it be nice to spend a fraction of that £20Bn on some direct investment here in Glasgow.or Manchester, Edinburgh, Newcastle, Durham, Leeds, Liverpool, Sheffield, Plymouth, Exeter, Humberside etc
The answer is of course an emphatic NO !
What in effect we we are looking for are the additional benefits for us in the South East of what George describes as “trickledown” !
i.e. lots of immediate investment in off shore bank accounts for Consultants, lawyers, accountants etc.
The benefits to you guys “Up North” will of course filter through eventually, (circa 20 years, if you are very, very lucky, which you won't be !)
Now I must confess there are some hidden costs, these are highlighted in my report in a section called “hidden costs”, I hadn't factored in a full terminal repaint this will be mostly orange, although there are rumours it may now also contain a splash of blue and yellow, we may also be forced into selling copious amounts of Guinness and changing the emblem over the Southern road tunnel to a harp !
Mr Walsh at London Airways is said to be less than thrilled by this news........!
In closing I have to report that Mr Beard who instigated my capacity increases much earlier than I had hoped has decided that these increase are not viable, and has inexplicably cancelled all further expansion , clearly Mr Beard should have read my report first !!!
In the interests of transparency and total obscurity I am also going to C.C. Millbank, is that OK ?
I will directly copy in Mr Burnham MP for Leigh Gtr Manchester (Or should that be Windsor).
They seem equally blind to the benefits of costs, sorry I mean expansion too !
Bye For Now
Yours Sincerely
Howard D. McSporran
Last edited by Bagso; 12th Jul 2015 at 08:31.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 2 DME
Age: 54
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shed,
Thanks for your observations and comments. As a wise man once said, you can be open to another's argument without having to accept it....
Just a couple of quick points. The scheme promoters of the various rail and road improvement projects including the Liverpool - Newcastle line will have to ascribe a value to the scheme, through a rigorous options appraisal and business case, before they go ahead. This will generate the aforementioned BCR. It will be based on information known today supported by sophisticated modelling - just as with The proposals for R3. That process will offer no more guarantee of delivering the suggested benefits than HAL's proposals do, it just helps to narrow down the options for how best to spend limited resources.
£11bn is a big figure, but needs to be taken in context. It's a little over a £1bn year over the life of the build programme, and equal to what HAL has invested since 2003. Crossrail's £14.8bn funding envelope is also a big figure when taken as one lump sum, but again that is spread over a 10 year period.
Speaking of Crossrail, I presume that you (and Bagso) have registered that the costs for Crossrail form part of TfL's magical £20bn figure, along with already committed improvements to the Piccadilly Line plus the HS2 spur and Western Rail Link? In other words it is committed money not available for spending in the regions anyway? I hadn't realised until doing some research this weekend - it is in Boris' response to the Airport Commission Interim Report in 2013...
Thanks for your observations and comments. As a wise man once said, you can be open to another's argument without having to accept it....
Just a couple of quick points. The scheme promoters of the various rail and road improvement projects including the Liverpool - Newcastle line will have to ascribe a value to the scheme, through a rigorous options appraisal and business case, before they go ahead. This will generate the aforementioned BCR. It will be based on information known today supported by sophisticated modelling - just as with The proposals for R3. That process will offer no more guarantee of delivering the suggested benefits than HAL's proposals do, it just helps to narrow down the options for how best to spend limited resources.
£11bn is a big figure, but needs to be taken in context. It's a little over a £1bn year over the life of the build programme, and equal to what HAL has invested since 2003. Crossrail's £14.8bn funding envelope is also a big figure when taken as one lump sum, but again that is spread over a 10 year period.
Speaking of Crossrail, I presume that you (and Bagso) have registered that the costs for Crossrail form part of TfL's magical £20bn figure, along with already committed improvements to the Piccadilly Line plus the HS2 spur and Western Rail Link? In other words it is committed money not available for spending in the regions anyway? I hadn't realised until doing some research this weekend - it is in Boris' response to the Airport Commission Interim Report in 2013...
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 77
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shed -- you make many points. Three comments.
1. Network Rail's capital fund is taxpayers money until the next ill-fated attempt to reprivatise NR. The TP funding is taxpayers money. The LHR project will be predominantly and possibly entirely air travellers money. So, no they are not competing for the same pot.
2. The 'pause' to the TP and MML project is caused as much by the inadequacy of the resources to prepare three major electrification projects simultaneously as by lack of funding. TP and MML are simply not ready to go.
3. The £147 bn. Of course even if we found the secret of eternal life we would never know the answer to the 'did it happen' question. We can't observe the counterfactual. It's the product of a model, the working of which will no doubt be scrutinised by Select Committees etc over the next few months.
1. Network Rail's capital fund is taxpayers money until the next ill-fated attempt to reprivatise NR. The TP funding is taxpayers money. The LHR project will be predominantly and possibly entirely air travellers money. So, no they are not competing for the same pot.
2. The 'pause' to the TP and MML project is caused as much by the inadequacy of the resources to prepare three major electrification projects simultaneously as by lack of funding. TP and MML are simply not ready to go.
3. The £147 bn. Of course even if we found the secret of eternal life we would never know the answer to the 'did it happen' question. We can't observe the counterfactual. It's the product of a model, the working of which will no doubt be scrutinised by Select Committees etc over the next few months.
When a group of NIMBYs with wire cutters can gain access and set up shop on the runway of the UK's busiest airport apparently undetected, one can only wonder just how far a well trained, well armed and determined terrorist group could get....
I still won't be able to get a yoghurt into work later, maybe I should try a chain link fence
I once had a small roll of sellotape taken off me at security, I still can't imagine what they thought I was going to do with it
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All sectors endorse the Davies report so I'm going with it
Labour Party
UKIP
SNP
Conservatives
The Evening Standard
The Daily Telegraph
The Sun
The Daily Mail
Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce
North East Chamber of Commerce
Glasgow Chamber of Commerce
South Tyneside Council
LA7 Shareholders
North Eastern Local Enterprise Partnership
Trades Union Congress (TUC)
Unite
British International Freight Association (BIFA)
Freight Trade Association (FTA)
Chartered Institute of Logistics & Transport (CILT)
Institute of Directors (IoD)
Confederation of British Industry (CBI).
EEF – The manufacturers’ organisation
Federation of Small Business (FSB)
British Chambers of Commerce (BCC)
London Chamber of Commerce and Industry
Slough Borough Council
Spelthorne Borough Council
Hounslow Chamber of Commerce
Thames Valley Chamber of Commerce
London First
World Road Association of the United Kingdom
Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign group
Aberdeen Airport
Glasgow Airport
Leeds Bradford Airport
Liverpool Airport
Newcastle Airport
Star Alliance
easyJet
Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce’s Policy Director, Chris Fletcher is quoted as saying
“The Chamber welcomes the findings of the Airport Commission and the news that a recommendation for a third runway at Heathrow has been made. It is important that government now moves quickly to make a final decision on this for the economic benefit of the UK. This whole issue has been delayed for far too long and ducking decisions in the past has meant we are in the position we find ourselves today. Coming on the back of recent announcements about huge investment at Manchester Airport and increasingly positive noises about HS2 it is crucial that this now begins to form part of a truly joined up national infrastructure and transport strategy.”…
…and the North East Chamber of Commerce Chief Executive, James Ramsbotham is quoted as saying
“Today’s Davies Report has given the right recommendation. While we want as many direct flights coming in and out of North East airports as possible, an expanded national hub is an essential requirement. The economic benefits of a third runway at Heathrow Airport are way in advance of any other options. Many of these benefits are set to be of advantage to regions outside the South East, ourselves included. The Commission has done what the Government has asked of it in that their recommendation represents the needs of the United Kingdom as a whole. The onus is now on our politicians to make a final decision and implement this without delay.”
So, yes there’s opposition and I’d not expect otherwise. However my original comment was that I was “going with” the Davies recommendation because it was endorsed by all sectors and had a clear economic benefit for UK plc. I understand the environmental concerns (HACAN) and even the local politicians point-of-view (Boris, Zac) but I’m not persuaded by their arguments. I am persuaded by a well researched and documented report that provides a high level of detail and as AndyH52 points out, a high level of cost certainty
“85% of those costs benchmarked though its supply chain
If I was to translate to my county your argument that yours is underinvested relative to the taxes it pays, I’d want more school places, more doctors and a modern 24/7 A&E with a wide variety of outpatient services on the edge of my village thanks. Oh, that’s right, I can’t have that because my taxes are pooled for the greater good of all living in the country. I’m pretty sure I pay higher council rates than those “up north” and I paid a higher capital price to just get in to the area I’m in. I’m not whinging about it though. Maybe that’s because I’m not British.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://twitter.com/search?q=planestupid&src=tyah
Anyone who wants to show these people up with rational debate please feel free to engage.
Wouldn't the local Tesco be way easier for mass mayhem? In all honesty.
Anyone who wants to show these people up with rational debate please feel free to engage.
one can only wonder just how far a well trained, well armed and determined terrorist group could get....
Wouldn't the local Tesco be way easier for mass mayhem?
Heathrow managed 53 arrivals and 8 departures between 04:30 and 07:00; on a typical Monday there would be around 60 arrivals and 10 departures during that period.
While the loss of 7 landing slots isn't trivial, it's probably no more than would have been lost in low-visibility or (pre-TBS) strong headwind conditions.
Registered User **
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Botswana & Greece
Age: 68
Posts: 940
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK I haven't read into this but my view is not an extra runway but an extra airport. Upper Heyford is just a few miles from the M40. A link road would be comparatively cheaper to build. Plus the infrastructure of course. I have been saying this for years. What is the argument about using this facility?
I have been saying this for years. What is the argument about using this facility?
Mind you, that £20 million would have paid for a fair few survey flights over Southern England, looking for existing bits of concrete close to motorways, if that was the only criterion required.
Or they could have borrowed a CAA chart and done it without moving from their desks.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T&N - At no stage have I suggested that LHR R3 lacks supporters. I merely called out your claim that "all sectors" support the project. Clearly they do not. Support for LHR R3 is not universal. I could draw up a comprehensive list of opponents but I don't see that that would get us any further forward.
I note and accept that you support LHR R3; likewise others must accept that I do not for the reasons outlined in earlier postings. This debate exists because there are two sides to the argument.
That's right. None of us can have everything that we want from finite public spending. However, if you were to discover that 92% of all state spending on health and education went to Greater Manchester and its immediate surroundings, don't you think you might object to that just slightly? You see, that's the issue with transport capital infrastructure funding in the UK ... London and the SE has been getting 92% of it and the remaining 70% of the population has been sharing the other 8%. And this has been going on for years. And with LHR R3 support works and Crossrail 2 on the horizon, and Transpennine Electrification cancelled (at just GBP260M), we aren't detecting any signs of a trend change.
We don't expect mathematical proportionality in transport capital infrastructure spending. But we do expect a helluva lot better than this.
I note and accept that you support LHR R3; likewise others must accept that I do not for the reasons outlined in earlier postings. This debate exists because there are two sides to the argument.
I’d want more school places, more doctors and a modern 24/7 A&E with a wide variety of outpatient services on the edge of my village thanks. Oh, that’s right, I can’t have that because my taxes are pooled for the greater good of all living in the country. I’m pretty sure I pay higher council rates than those “up north” and I paid a higher capital price to just get in to the area I’m in.
We don't expect mathematical proportionality in transport capital infrastructure spending. But we do expect a helluva lot better than this.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Tamworth, UK / Nairobi, Kenya
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
remaining 70% of the population
64 million in the UK
8/64 = .125 or 12.5%
the remaining 87.5% of the population, not 70%
makes the point even more painful
hence, and I still think this is far better, if an airport in the Midlands was extended, ie. West Midlands, and more trains were run from there to/from London, we'd solve multiple problems with one piece of pavement
someone's rebuttal to that was the people don't want to fly into the midlands and then travel for an hour to get to London, but the fact is that people don't want to fly into London and then travel for an hour or two to the Midlands or the North. Let alone that if you fly into LHR it can take an hour or 2 to get into London.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Slough, UK
Age: 35
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am pro R3 because I see LHR as incredibly constrained and the third runway is merely a reaction to the increased demand for flights into the capital as well as giving UK airlines the platform to generate business away from their home markets using the hub and spoke system.
However, I try to take a balanced view of things and I can see where the anti-R3 people are coming from. The bottom line is that this country is far too London-centric in terms of the way business is conducted. The government should be trying to diversify and encourage businesses to the regions to spread wealth across the whole of the UK (especially during this digital age where location isn't as important). If they do that, then existing runway capacity can be used more effectively.
Also, as LHR is a hub and spoke operation, you need the feeder flights into the airport to justify the VLAs operating to all corners of the globe. There simply isn't the demand to operate to many destinations from the UK regional airports without feeder traffic from across Europe. Point to point Euro flights are ok with 150 seats. Filling 300-400 seats for a long haul flight requires feed. Just look at EK. This is why we only see a significant number of widebody long haul flights from Heathrow.
If we assume that the country will weight itself more and more towards London, then LHR R3 needs to be built. Simple.
While they're at it, LGW should get another runway anyway to future-proof it and enable dual runway ops. Bulldozing the CAA would be a nice start
.
Champ
However, I try to take a balanced view of things and I can see where the anti-R3 people are coming from. The bottom line is that this country is far too London-centric in terms of the way business is conducted. The government should be trying to diversify and encourage businesses to the regions to spread wealth across the whole of the UK (especially during this digital age where location isn't as important). If they do that, then existing runway capacity can be used more effectively.
Also, as LHR is a hub and spoke operation, you need the feeder flights into the airport to justify the VLAs operating to all corners of the globe. There simply isn't the demand to operate to many destinations from the UK regional airports without feeder traffic from across Europe. Point to point Euro flights are ok with 150 seats. Filling 300-400 seats for a long haul flight requires feed. Just look at EK. This is why we only see a significant number of widebody long haul flights from Heathrow.
If we assume that the country will weight itself more and more towards London, then LHR R3 needs to be built. Simple.
While they're at it, LGW should get another runway anyway to future-proof it and enable dual runway ops. Bulldozing the CAA would be a nice start
.Champ
Guest
Posts: n/a
Upper Heyford
With Exascot regards Upper Heyford. All the infrastructure is there and surely less expensive and less environmentally damaging. Is the extra runway more political than logical? Do the politicians think that LHR is a realistic competitor with other European out of city hubs?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Is the extra runway more political than logical?"
It is logical for a politician to listen to the people who elect him - no?
It has ALWAYS been about politics - the original Roskill Report was canned because the good people of Bedfordshire etc put up a stink, then Foulness went through the roof then.........
Airports are like Energy supplies - we all want them , we want them cheap and we want them easy to use
BUT THEY CAN'T BE ANYWHERE NEAR US
It is logical for a politician to listen to the people who elect him - no?
It has ALWAYS been about politics - the original Roskill Report was canned because the good people of Bedfordshire etc put up a stink, then Foulness went through the roof then.........
Airports are like Energy supplies - we all want them , we want them cheap and we want them easy to use
BUT THEY CAN'T BE ANYWHERE NEAR US
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DON'T FORGET THE BILL!
Taking Portmanteau's example a stage further, HKG (CLK) cost around GBP12Bn to deliver in 1998 terms, which equates to GBP19.5Bn in today's money. So a project to deliver ONE new runway at LHR is actually likely to cost more than building HKG (partially on land reclaimed from the sea!!!) at today's rates. And as we know, Istanbul's new super airport is projected to cost just GBP8Bn.
I note that once again, since the Davies Report was published, we on here (and the journalists, politicians etc.) have slipped back into focussing on operational considerations whilst the crazy price-tag gets scarcely a mention. The money DOES matter, specifically the publicly-funded portion.
Why is it that a vital rail-electrification project in the North - forecast to cost GBP260M (that's an "M" by the way) is 'delayed indefinitely' due to Network Rail funding shortfalls, yet we dismiss an estimated GBP10Bn (that's a 'B' by the way) of public funding requirement associated with a modest one-third expansion of LHR as if it were inconsequential?
MP Graham Stringer recently pointed out that the overspend on the Jubilee Line alone exceeded the capital expenditure on transport in ALL OTHER REGIONS OF ENGLAND for 18 months!!! London and the SE has been swallowing up NINETY-TWO PERCENT of all capital expenditure on transport. Going forward, it is projected that over the next decade public spending on transport infrastructure will be GBP460 per NW resident versus GBP3095 per London resident. The figures for the NE are far worse.
This obscene investment gap must close. London apologists like to dismiss regional concerns by claiming that we provincials resent London and the SE enjoying world-class infrastructure innovations (the 'sour grapes' argument). Not so. But what we do object to is being continuously overlooked for our own turn in the sun. We want our fair share - our regional economies desperately need it - and that is NOT 8% of transport infrastructure funding split amongst 70% of the population. Who are all taxed at the same rates as Londoners.
Vast sums of public funding MUST NOT be signed-off for more super-scale London infrastructure projects (LHR R3 support works, Crossrail 2 etc.) until AFTER the regions have had a series of essential catch-up infrastructure innovations approved and fully funded. Balance must be established ... note that I don't use the word "restored"!
I'm sure we'll soon be treated to the usual dismissive responses informing us that LHR R3 will be a windfall for the regions. Please don't patronise us with such hogwash. LHR expansion is overwhelmingly a project for the benefit of London and the SE. As Sir Richard Leese neatly put it: "In my experience, trickledown really does mean a trickle!"
Taking Portmanteau's example a stage further, HKG (CLK) cost around GBP12Bn to deliver in 1998 terms, which equates to GBP19.5Bn in today's money. So a project to deliver ONE new runway at LHR is actually likely to cost more than building HKG (partially on land reclaimed from the sea!!!) at today's rates. And as we know, Istanbul's new super airport is projected to cost just GBP8Bn.
I note that once again, since the Davies Report was published, we on here (and the journalists, politicians etc.) have slipped back into focussing on operational considerations whilst the crazy price-tag gets scarcely a mention. The money DOES matter, specifically the publicly-funded portion.
Why is it that a vital rail-electrification project in the North - forecast to cost GBP260M (that's an "M" by the way) is 'delayed indefinitely' due to Network Rail funding shortfalls, yet we dismiss an estimated GBP10Bn (that's a 'B' by the way) of public funding requirement associated with a modest one-third expansion of LHR as if it were inconsequential?
MP Graham Stringer recently pointed out that the overspend on the Jubilee Line alone exceeded the capital expenditure on transport in ALL OTHER REGIONS OF ENGLAND for 18 months!!! London and the SE has been swallowing up NINETY-TWO PERCENT of all capital expenditure on transport. Going forward, it is projected that over the next decade public spending on transport infrastructure will be GBP460 per NW resident versus GBP3095 per London resident. The figures for the NE are far worse.
This obscene investment gap must close. London apologists like to dismiss regional concerns by claiming that we provincials resent London and the SE enjoying world-class infrastructure innovations (the 'sour grapes' argument). Not so. But what we do object to is being continuously overlooked for our own turn in the sun. We want our fair share - our regional economies desperately need it - and that is NOT 8% of transport infrastructure funding split amongst 70% of the population. Who are all taxed at the same rates as Londoners.
Vast sums of public funding MUST NOT be signed-off for more super-scale London infrastructure projects (LHR R3 support works, Crossrail 2 etc.) until AFTER the regions have had a series of essential catch-up infrastructure innovations approved and fully funded. Balance must be established ... note that I don't use the word "restored"!
I'm sure we'll soon be treated to the usual dismissive responses informing us that LHR R3 will be a windfall for the regions. Please don't patronise us with such hogwash. LHR expansion is overwhelmingly a project for the benefit of London and the SE. As Sir Richard Leese neatly put it: "In my experience, trickledown really does mean a trickle!"
If LHR Ltd and other investors are prohibited from building a third rwy, do you really think that they will invest in northern infrastructure?
Do you not realise that even with no third rwy, further public sector investment in surface access infrastructure around LHR will be necessary?
Perhaps not surprisingly, very strong support for LHR expansion in this part of the world and the North East. Business leaders, chambers of commerce etc. This "we in the North" stance against Heathrow simply doesn't resonate with what I see and hear. I suspect very similar in Merseyside too. This isn't anti-MAN, but simply reflects LHR's status as one of a handful of global hub airports. Seems entirely logical that links into this global hub (and other) are seen by many as a valuable driver of economic activity.
By the way, Skipness, the Liverpool - Manchester - Leeds (- Sheffield / Bradford) - York - Newcastle rail corridor is also a national asset in the same way LHR is. Although I do realise that you're probably choking on your lunch contemplating that concept.
Oh hell, another flock of pigs just flew by, it’s becoming an epidemic!
M4 J3 to J4 Road widening
M4 Airport Spur Road widening
M4 J2 to J3 Road widening
M4 J4 and J4B Road widening
M4 Large M4 Junction 4b replacement
M4 Higher capacity @ M4 J4a
M4 Capacity improvements to existing main airport tunnel
M4 Airport Spur Road widening
M4 J2 to J3 Road widening
M4 J4 and J4B Road widening
M4 Large M4 Junction 4b replacement
M4 Higher capacity @ M4 J4a
M4 Capacity improvements to existing main airport tunnel
A third rwy could make it happen a little earlier and therefore it would be cheaper (fewer years of the costs of dithering, delay and procrastination).
M25 M25 tunnelling costs (south of junction 15)
A4 Diversion of A4 road alignment, dual carriageway
A3044 Diversion of A3044 road alignment, dual carriageway
Airport Roads Airport Way/Southern Perimeter Road, interchange, grade-separated junction and
flyover/bridge structures
Heathrow Road Tunnel Southern Road Tunnel/Southern Perimeter Road Interchange
Airport One Way One way system for western campus
A4 Diversion of A4 road alignment, dual carriageway
A3044 Diversion of A3044 road alignment, dual carriageway
Airport Roads Airport Way/Southern Perimeter Road, interchange, grade-separated junction and
flyover/bridge structures
Heathrow Road Tunnel Southern Road Tunnel/Southern Perimeter Road Interchange
Airport One Way One way system for western campus
Rail - Southern Rail Access to Staines
Alongside these proposals I've also thrown in the concept of a new ‘hub station’ on the Great Western Main Line (GWML) to the north of the airport boundary. This would be located close to Iver and would be linked to the airport by a direct Automated People Mover (APM). The objective would be to provide enhanced rail access to the airport, with all services on the GWML stopping at
the hub station,
the hub station,
OK I haven't read into this but my view is not an extra runway but an extra airport. Upper Heyford is just a few miles from the M40. A link road would be comparatively cheaper to build. Plus the infrastructure of course. I have been saying this for years. What is the argument about using this facility?